Course Content Introduction

This is an introductory series of courses on moral and political philosophy. The first 12 parts of this course are designed to guide the audience to think critically about some basic issues about justice, equality, democracy and civil rights. Every week, more than 1,000 students attend classes taught by Harvard professor and author Michael Sandel to expand their cognitive understanding of political and moral philosophy and explore the rights and wrongs of inherent ideas. Students will also be exposed to some of the great philosophers of the past - Aristotle, Kant, Mill, and Locke. Then, apply the course to analyze complex and changing modern issues: patronage measures, same-sex marriage, patriotism, loyalty, etc.

In his teaching, Sandel puts students in ethical dilemmas through the description of some hypothetical or real cases, and then asks them to make a decision: "What should I do?" He encourages students to stand up for Defend your own points of view, which often inspires lively and humorous classroom debates. Sandel then circles around ethical issues, touching deeper on the assumptions behind different moral choices. This pedagogy often reveals the contradictory nature of moral reasoning.

September 13, 2009

Lecture 1: "The Moral Side of Murder"

If you have to choose to kill one person or five people, What would you choose? What is the correct approach? Professor Michael Sandel presented this hypothetical scenario in his lecture, where a majority of students voted to kill one person to save the lives of the other five. But Sandel presents three similar moral dilemmas - each so cleverly designed that the choice becomes increasingly difficult. When students stood up to defend their tough choices, Sandel made his case. The assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.

Lecture 2: "The Case of Self-Mutilation of the Same Kind"

Sandel introduced the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham and a famous case in the 19th century. The people involved were four crew members of the wrecked ship. After they were lost at sea for 19 days, the captain decided to kill the cabin boy, the weakest of the four, so that they could live on his blood and body. The case sparked debate among students about utilitarianism, which advocates the maximization of happiness and whose slogan is "the greatest good for the greatest number of people."

September 20, 2009

Lecture 3: "Giving Life a Price Tag"

Jeremy Bentham (Jeremy Bentham) at 18 The theory of utilitarianism - the greatest happiness theory - developed in the late 19th century is often called "cost-benefit analysis" today. Sandel gives examples of companies using this theory to make important business decisions by assessing the value of a dollar in life. This leads to a discussion of the objections to utilitarianism: Is it fair to emphasize the interests of the majority even when those interests may be despicable or inhumane?

Lecture 4: "How to Measure Happiness"

Sandel introduced another utilitarian philosopher, J.S. Mill (Mill, also translated as "Mill"). He believes that all human experiences can be quantified, but some happiness is more worthy of having and more valuable. Mill believed that if a society valued greater joy and justice, then society as a whole would eventually improve in the long run. Sandel tested this theory by showing the class three video clips of "The Simpsons," the live-action show "Jumanji," and Shakespeare's "Hamlet" - and then asking students to debate which of the three experiences A happiness that should be rated as "maximum".

September 27, 2009

Lecture 5: "Free Choice"

Liberals believe that a society with minimal government intervention is the most ideal social form. . Sandel introduced liberal philosopher Robert Nozick, who believed that every individual has the basic right to choose the life he wants. The government should not have the power to make laws for people to protect themselves (seat belt laws), it should not have the power to make laws that impose moral values ??on society, and it should not have the power to make laws that redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Sandel used the examples of Bill Gates and Michael Jordan to explain Nozick's theory: the redistribution of taxes is a form of forced labor.

Lecture 6: "Who do I belong to?" 》

Liberal philosopher Robert Nozick gave the example of taxing the rich—house taxes, health care, education for the poor—which is a form of coercion. Students began by discussing arguments in favor of tax redistribution. If you are in a social system with a more progressive tax system, are you forced to pay taxes? Do the poor need the social services they already receive? Do they deserve those services? Do the wealthy often acquire wealth through luck or family fortune? In this lecture, a group of students (called the "Free Will Team") were asked to defend objections to free will.

October 4, 2009

Lecture 7: "I am in charge of my territory"

John Locke is a supporter of libertarianism , is also its critic. Locke noted that in the "state of nature," before any political system was established, everyone had natural rights to life, liberty, and property. However, once we agree to enter society, we agree to be bound by the legal system. Therefore, Locke argued that even if the government interferes with the rights of individuals, it is the majority opinion that gives it the authority to do so.

Lecture 8: "Adults of Legal Age"

Locke talked about the issues of taxation and consent, and how he faced the following two problems: 1) He Believes that individuals have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property 2) The government passes most regulations and taxes individuals without their consent? Doesn't this amount to taking his/her personal property without his/her consent? Locke's answer is that we are giving "tacit consent" to tax laws through social life, and therefore, taxes are legal. Moreover, as long as the government does not tax a group specifically - if not arbitrarily - then taxes do not violate the basic rights of individuals.

October 11, 2009

Lecture 9: "Hire a Gun?"

During the Civil War, men were drafted to fight on the front lines - but recruits were allowed to pay to hire men to replace them. Professor Sandel asked the students: Is this policy an example of free market transactions? Or is this some form of coercion? Because there must be more financial incentives for lower class people to serve? This sparked classroom debates on contemporary issues such as war and conscription. Are today's volunteer armies truly voluntary? Do many recruits come from disproportionately economically disadvantaged backgrounds? What role does “patriotism” play? What are the obligations of citizenship? Should citizens have the obligation to serve in the military for their country?

Lecture 10: "Mothers for Sale"

Professor Sandel applies free market transactions to a new and controversial contemporary area: reproductive rights. Sandel describes the strange parents in the modern "sperm and egg donation" trade. Then Sandel took the debate deeper. He talked about the "Baby M" incident. This famous case once triggered the question and contradiction of "whose child is it?" Here's what happened: In the mid-1980s, Mary Beth Whitehead signed a contract with a New Jersey couple, agreeing to be their "surrogate mother" in exchange for paying her a large sum of money. But 24 hours after giving birth, Whitehead decided to keep the child, so the two parties had to go to court. Students discussed the ethics of selling one's life, with arguments surrounding promises, contracts and mother's rights.

October 18, 2009

Lecture 11: "Consider Your Motives"

Professor Sandel introduced Kant in the course: The most challenging and one of the most difficult thinkers. Kant believed that we, as individuals, are divine and possessors of power, but not because we own ourselves. Rather, reason and free choice are our abilities that make us unique and set us apart from mere animals. When we put our responsibilities into action (doing the right thing), only then will our actions have moral value. Sandel cited an example of a shopkeeper who refused to give change to a customer because he was afraid it would affect his business. According to Kant's theory, this is not a moral act because he does not find the right reasons to do the right thing….

Lecture 12: "The Supreme Principle of Morality"

Kant said that in terms of the moral value of our actions, what gives it moral value is that we transcend our own interests and preferences. The ability to put responsibility into action. Sandel tells the true story of a 13-year-old boy who won a spelling bee, but later admitted to the judge that he had gotten the last word wrong. Using this story and others, Sandel explains how to use Kant's theory to determine whether an action is morally right: When making a decision, imagine whether the moral principles behind your action could become necessary for everyone. universal law to be followed. Can this principle be used as a universal rule to benefit everyone?

October 25, 2009

Lecture 13: "The Lesson of Lies"

Kant's moral theory is so strict that it does not allow any exceptions. He believes that lying, even a white lie, is an violation of his dignity. Put his theory to the test with a hypothetical case: If your friend was hiding in your house and a killer knocked on your door to ask where he was, what would you say to him--not lying--to save your friend? This sparked discussion of "misleading truths" - and of President Clinton's use of precise language to deny a sexual relationship with Lewinsky without directly lying to the public.

Lecture 14: "An Agreement is an Agreement"

Sandel introduced the modern philosopher John Rawls and his "hypothetical contract" theory.

Rawls believes the only way to achieve the most just and equitable governance is if all legislators come to the table as equals. Imagine if they were all behind a “veil of ignorance” – a time when their personally identifiable information (their race, their class, their personal interests) was temporarily withheld from the public, and they had to come to terms with a set of laws. Rawls believes that only in this way can governing bodies agree on truly fair and equitable principles.

November 1, 2009

Lecture 15: "What is a fair starting point?" 》

John Rawls applies his "veil of ignorance" theory to the debate over social and economic equality, as well as issues of fair governance. If every citizen, he asked, had to participate in the redistribution of taxes—when they did not know whether they would end up among the poor or rich members of society—wouldn't most of us prefer to eliminate financial risk and agree to a fair distribution of wealth? What?

Lecture 16: "What should we get?" 》

Professor Sandel recounts three different theories concerning how income, wealth and opportunity are distributed in life. He summarizes liberalism, meritocracy, and egalitarian theory, leading to discussion of the fairness of pay differentials in today's society. Sandel compared the salaries of Justice O’Connor ($200,000) and Judge Judy ($25 million) of the U.S. Supreme Court. Sandel asked everyone, is this fair? If not, why? Sandel explains John Rawls's view that personal "success" is often the result of random events that have nothing to do with honor: luck, inherited wealth, a positive family environment. But for an individual who puts in more effort and takes longer to achieve success - how is his/her effort measured?

November 8, 2009

Lecture 17: "Discussing Anti-Discrimination Actions"

Students discussed anti-discrimination actions and college admissions issues. Is it right for schools to consider race and ethnicity in admissions? Is it a violation of personal rights? Is it as egalitarian and subjective as liking a star athlete? Does this argument tend to justify the push for diversity? How does this argument stack up against the idea that student effort and grades matter more?

Lecture 18: "What is the purpose?" 》

Sandel introduced Aristotle’s theory of fairness and justice, which simply means telling people what they should pay and what they should get. Aristotle believed that when a person considers the problem of distribution, he must consider the goal, end and purpose of distribution. For him, it was about a man finding the right place to exercise his virtues.

November 15, 2009

Lecture 19: "The Good Citizen"

Aristotle's theory of justice sparks debate about golf , specifically the “purpose” of golf. Students debated whether the PGA of America was wrong in not allowing disabled player Casey Martin to use a golf cart on the professional tour.

Lecture 20: "Freedom and Adaptation"

Sandel identifies the most prominent objection to Aristotle's views on freedom—his defense of slavery. Students discuss other objections to Aristotle's theories and debate whether his philosophy limits individual freedom.

November 22, 2009

Lecture 21: "The Needs of Society"

Professor Sandel introduced the theory of Aristotle by Kant and John Rawl Against this objection, Aristotle believed that an individual should have the freedom and ability to choose his ultimate goal. This leads to an introduction to communist views. As individuals, how should we measure our obligations to our families, our obligations to society, and our obligations to our country?

Lecture 22: "Where Our Loyalty Lies"

Professor Sandel initiated a discussion: in various social groups, ranging from groups as small as families to large societies, Do we have the obligation to work together and as members? Responding to different incidents, students debated whether and when loyalty was more important than duty.

November 29, 2009

Lecture 23: "Debating Same-Sex Marriage"

If the principle of justice depends on whether the end point served by rights is moral or intrinsic value. How does society deal with different people having different ideas and concepts of what is “good”? Using the example of same-sex marriage, students debate whether it is possible to divorce the moral legitimacy of sex from the ultimate purpose of marriage.

Lecture 24: "Good Life"

Professor Sandel raised two questions. Is it necessary to find the reasons for a good life in order to decide what is justice and what are the rights of the people? If that's the case, is it possible to argue or prove what the essence of a good life is? The role of government in determining the purpose of marriage was further discussed during the student debate. Sandel concludes by pointing out that we as individuals may never agree on many issues in moral philosophy. But he believes, on the one hand, that debate on these issues is inevitable.

On the other hand, it gives us a good opportunity to better understand the values ??of others.